Syria

Sorry? I don't think you have any either, the UN weapons inspectors haven't finished their report yet, all you have is the opinions of institutions who have lied to you in the past. Alleged Syrian Rebel weapons attacks:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

 

No but that was what you were advocating which is what are supposed to be fighting against in Syria. As Hans Brix said the West is not "the World Police".

 

lol. you have to laugh at that video. how in anyway is that evidence? you see no individuals, you hear two voices one of whom happens to mention sarin gas. the video is clearly pro-assad, what do you expect it to show? government forces launching gas canisters into rebel held areas?

 

I don't actually, not the people .... but unfortunately their regime are a bunch of megalomaniacs and certainly not my favourite cup of tea.

 

How can you not see that what you are being shown is wrong?

 

That's my point, until the UN report comes out no one has any.

 

Don't you see any hypocrisy here?

 

Cameron is more than capable of doing that on his own. Arguably the Labour amended motion was even more humanitarian in it's drafting but the coalition voted that one down.

 

No I didn't. I've said a few times now that I would abstain and withhold judgement until the full facts are known and the UN report back. As a side point democratic countries can also be tyrannies too.

 

But I'm not advocating that we "go in" as I have already said that I am not sure what is the best thing to do. I am just annoyed that you are making wild assumptions based on your anti US stance, rather than evidence.

 

What evidence? The UN Weapons Inspectors haven't finished their report? Here's some more "evidence":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-forces-used-chemical-weapons-during-assault-on-city-of-fallujah-514433.html

 

You implied it, you said, "Some things transcend public opinion...", etc, etc.

 

Why you can't trust the media for a fair, balanced and impartial view:

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/bbc-news-uses-iraq-photo-to-illustrate-syrian-massacre/

http://piecefit.com/index.php/en/system-failure/freedom-of-speech/item/40-did-you-know-that-it-s-legal-to-lie-on-the-news#k2Container

 

You're interpreting my words to suit your agenda. It isn't what I implied at all.

 

:sign12:

You can't trust people with an agenda for peace unless you're killing for it?

 

Perhaps some of those pushing for Military strikes should take a step back and look at the wider picture and try to understand the repercussions of such a move - there's potential for this to engulf the whole region (if it hasn't already begun) and draw in countries from all over the Middle East (Including Western nations)

 

Now now Simms, where's your evidence?

 

I think you ought to read the posts properly before having a go. Or not bother at all.

 

I think you should buy a dictionary and look up the word evidence.

 

What is your opinion on whether passive moral responsibility exists?

THe way things work are that the person making a claim must produce supporting evidence.

 

http://thebackbencher.co.uk/how-did-your-mp-vote-on-syria-find-out-here/

Can't believe it Nick Clegg voted against the Government.

 

He voted against the motion put foward by Labour.

 

You're backpeddling is laughable, you got school-ed, don't throw a philosophy term in there to try and make yourself look more intelligent to try and regain the impetus.

 

My mistake, I will learn to read one day... :doh:

 

I'm asking a question. You seem to think peace is preferable even if it means more suffering and the continued use of chemical weapons is a result. I shall ask again. Do you think someone can be responsible for an occurrence through inaction? If you do then we are responsible if more deaths and suffering happen than if we did intervene.

 

In the case of 100% proof the UN should take limited action to forcibly arrest the perpetrator(s) whoever they may be, and put them on trial. That does not mean a mandate for regime change, although it may mean unrestricted but objective limited military action by any and all forces at the UNs disposal.

Ask yourself who would gain from a very public attack using chemical weapons that would attract closer UN attention and potential military regime change.

The Arabs and the Jews have been killing each other in that part of the world for 3,000 years. I have absolutely no issue with the Syrians joining in the self-destruction for the next 3,000 years. It has nothing to do with us.

If the Arab league wants to do something about it then let them. Its not the UK or Europe's problem.

See top. It is for the Syrian people to decide who they want as a leader, not us, and not the UN. This civil war will play out and eventually will come to a conclusion without us poking our noses in where it is not wanted.

If the army has surplus people sitting around with sweet FA to do except look for excuses to go over there then they should resign and join the rebels. Tax payer money must concentrate 110% on the economy, housing, schools, hospitals, welfare, unemployed... not foreign wars we can't afford.

Our country is in a f**ing mess and that is where our politicians (of all parties!) should be spending their efforts.

 

The last time we "intervened" as you put it, more people died than if we hadn't got involved, you cannot use violence to bring peace. Let's risk starting another World War to save lives?

 

How can you prove that though? Or is that the point you're trying to make? Your philosophical crap makes your arguements very hard to understand, especially as you usally don't really have a point and just try to sound clever - I'm sure anybody could pick up a University text book and do the same.

 

Can that ever truly be proved? That's maybe more of an opinion based on which side someone is looking from.

 

I agree - this truly has the potential to cause much more suffering and loss of life on a much larger scale, if Syria retaliate and attack Israel (like they've warned) who knows how Israel and then Iran would react.

 

Because they were alive before our intervention?

 

As nascot says that can't be proved. Mistakes in Iraq has no bearing on whether or not to take action in Syria. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that we should allow the use of chemical weapons and allow the suffering of civilians because we oughtn't use violence to bring peace.

You can't prove it. I try to word them in a simple way. The point is that if we don't do anything and people continue to be killed by the thousands where know that fewer people would have died had we intervened then we are morally responsible, as are all the countries who could have helped yet chose not to. But it can't be known.

 

But Saddam was killing his own people. He'd killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands before 2003. He'd used chemical weapons in his genocide against the Kurds. Naive to think he wouldn't kill another soul had we not invaded.

 

So your point is we're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't...

You could have saved your self a lot of typing if you had just said that to start with.